Value

What is the value of an orange? (fruit)

Well, let’s see. Orange orchards provide income for people in Florida and California–from the orchardists to pickers, sorters, boxers, loaders, carriers, juicers, packagers, and grocery store produce people and check-out clerks.

The consumer gets a source of vitamin c without having to take a pill, s/he also gets a morning sugar jolt (if orange juice is part of breakfast.) S/he in many cultures use oranges for candy, food flavoring, and I don’t know what else. Orange oil is used in cosmetics, cleaning products, to flavor medicines, and a whole lot of other stuff.

All in all, I think oranges have a lot of value. :slight_smile:

to a guy in a liferaft a week in, big, big bucks.

Futures are up. Forcasted production dropped 5% because of greening disease. Prices are up and may continue climbing. Current pricing is around $1.40/lb FOJC.

Ya got a bit carried away with using s/he. Lost yourself in your love of using it so much that you used it incorrectly. Enthusiasm is all well and good, and I know what it feels like to be excited to use a new word I just learned, but you have to be mindful sweety.

Anyway, OP should make his question less open, more specific. One important thing to know before we’re able to narrow the answer down to something that’s a satisfying answer is, for what purpose are you asking this question? Are you trying to figure out a grocery budget? Are you trying to figure something out about the nature of value? What are you trying to achieve with this question?

I know, FJ, I know. The sentence would have been a lot better if it read, “May cultures…” But you know what it’s like when you start chewing a piece of fresh bubble gum-- when it’s still soft–it’s hard to not want to blow bubbles all the time! :smiley:

Mowk and I have spoken before. If he’s as bright as I think he is, he’ll understand I was kidding him, gently.

At the same time, I think I’ve covered most uses of value as in ‘value theory.’ Having read Mowk’s replies in Gifts and the Destruction of Value, however, I don’t think he was necessarily talking about value theory, either, so you’re correct in your suggestion to him.

Dang it, FJ, that makes you correct on two counts! Just stop that right now! (Hee-Hee)

It depends on how hungry I am and the availability of foods that I would prefer to an orange. I cannot say for sure that I have ever even purchased an orange, with exception to purchasing an orange for use in a recipe, that is. If you offered me an orange in the morning, and the temperature outside was at least 70 degrees Fahrenheit, then I would accept. If it were cooler than 70 degrees, I would decline.

If this answer is not what you were looking for, consider me as concurring with Tentative, as that is the second consideration that comes to mind.

I am all for that fluff in an orange. And then we can discuss the value of a saltine cracker.

But I was looking more at it in the vein of least common denominator. I don’t think its value can be reduced to merely human whims.

For all the oranges ‘sunshine’ its consumption provides an ascribed value, that which a body can distill from its consumption. Whether I eat it, you eat it, or its nailed to a tree for a passing Oriole. Least common denominator.

Its value is life or death, its cost, arbitrary and subject to whim and circumstance, perceptions of which are manipulated and abstracted. Evacuate the smoke and break the mirrors and what you are left with is how long it sustains life.

And no Liz, i did not - consequently…

One of the first to read the OP, I decided not to reply because I had to figure out which side generated more questions, the serious side or the absurd side. The absurd side wins, by a serious amount.

:shrug:

I apologize. What is the least common denominator that hasn’t already been mentioned? What’s the value of an orange, to you?

‘whims’ - no one has cited any. But value is always a matter of subjective considerations.

The value of sustaining life is just as subjective as the price.

You may value things which sustain human life, but that hardly makes it an objective measure.

Whim was likely not the best wording.

What I was attempting to get at was that animals derive a benefit from objects as well. Nest building materials are of value to a bird. So when there are items of value that are shared between species then the value of an item should take that into consideration rather then thinking value is a solely human concern. Air, food and water are of value to more then just humans.

Whim isn’t such a terrible word.
It’s rarely going to be the case that orange consumption is an deep, intellectual decision.
One also rarely has an accidentally valuable encounter with an orange, which means that intentional decision is at the centre of orange consumption. And with intellectual decision marginalised, the remainder is whimsical decision.
By “consumption”, that could be taken to mean all manner of valuable ways in which an orange may be involved, though I have no objection to it being taken as meaning “eating” since that is going to be the predominant way in which value is drawn from oranges in whatever shape or form.

As for opening up the value of an orange to non-humans, are you suggesting that value is greater, the greater the number of valuers?
This isn’t a terrible assumption, though it does require that value is quantifiable rather than (or as well as) simply qualifiable, and also common enough with other quantums of value to be accruable.

Value originates from and dwells within valuers, though it is probably better thought of as the result of an interaction between valuer and “valuee” (which detracts from the notion of common value that can be accrued since all valuers are different). The “valuee” or object of value is merely passive in this respect, and as such does not take part in active valuation. As such, any properties of an orange do not take part in this endeavour, and thus value ought not to be associated with oranges (as the object of value).

Since this all effectively rids value from any notions of objectivity, the question of “What is the value of an orange? (fruit)” is rendered absurd as it presupposes that value involves some kind of universality. This is reflected in the replies each pre-supposing particular subjective valuations.

~0.5 SVU

I apologize if you found my answer absurd, but that is my serious answer. I would first look at personal value and then overall economical value. I would perhaps look at the cost of a single orange from one store to another before going into orange futures, so perhaps Tent’s answer would be third on my list.

I will admit that 70 degrees Fahrenheit was fairly arbitrary, but assuming that I am not hungry to the point of being physically uncomfortable, I will only eat an orange if it is hot outside. I have no interest in an orange if it is not hot outside. I don’t know why, but I asked myself, “Under what circumstances would I eat an orange,” and then answered honestly. I can tolerate oranges, but by no means do I like them.

Furthermore, an orange is a breakfast food, in my opinion, so again barring being uncomfortably hungry, I would only eat it in the morning.

This is a strange, strange topic.

Could that be because we’re all strange, strange people? :slight_smile:

Hardly huh? That the calories are measurable is not objective?